Pakistan says 51 killed in India clashes last week
Pakistan's army announced on Tuesday a new death toll of 40 civilians and 11 military service members killed last week in the worst confrontation with India in decades.
The nuclear-armed neighbours engaged in four days of tit-for-tat strikes that threatened to escalate into all-out war before US President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire Saturday he said Washington brokered.
Pakistan's army said in a statement that India's "unprovoked and reprehensible dastardly attacks" killed 40 civilians, including seven women and 15 children.
"While defending the motherland with exemplary valour, 11 personnel of the Pakistan Armed Forces embraced martyrdom and 78 were wounded," it said.
"Let there be no ambiguity: any attempt to challenge Pakistan's sovereignty or territorial integrity, ever again, shall be met with a swift, full-spectrum, and decisive response", it added.
Previously Pakistan's official toll was 33 civilians with no military losses.
India has said that 15 civilians and five soldiers died.
Despite mutual claims on initial violations, the ceasefire still appeared to be holding on Tuesday.
Trump said Monday that US intervention had prevented a "bad nuclear war".
"We stopped a nuclear conflict... millions of people could have been killed. So I'm very proud of that," he told reporters at the White House.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi said in a televised address to the nation on Monday that Pakistan has chosen to attack rather than help it fight "terrorism".
"If another terrorist attack against India is carried out, a strong response will be given," he said.
A post from his account on X Tuesday said he had met with service members involved in the conflict.
"It was a very special experience to be with those who epitomise courage, determination and fearlessness. India is eternally grateful to our armed forces for everything they do for our nation.," he said.
The latest flare-up followed an April 22 attack on tourists in Indian-administered Kashmir which killed 26 people.
India accused Pakistan of backing the attack, but Islamabad denied involvement.
- 'Terrorist camps' -
The fighting began before dawn last Wednesday, when India launched missile attacks destroying what it called "terrorist camps" in the Pakistan-administered part of Kashmir.
Each side then accused the other of launching waves of warplane and drone strikes, as well as missile and artillery bombardments that killed at least 60 people on both sides.
"If Pakistan wants to survive, it will have to destroy its terror infrastructure," Modi said Monday.
"India will strike with precision and decisiveness against the terrorist groups thriving under the cover of nuclear blackmail.
"India's stand is very clear. Terror and talks cannot go together... Terror and trade cannot go together... Water and blood cannot flow together."
The flare-up in violence was the worst since the rivals' last open conflict in 1999 and sparked global shudders that it could spiral into full-blown war.
Pakistan's military statement Tuesday listed the highest ranked service member to be killed in the latest conflict as an airforce squadron leader.
The military has said it downed five Indian jets, but has not admitted losing any aircraft of its own.
India has not disclosed losing any aircraft.
burs-stu/fox
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's new approach to Russia's war in Ukraine might be his worst yet
Donald Trump and his team have spent a fair amount of time recently trying to convince the public that the president's policy toward Russia's war in Ukraine is having a positive impact. In mid-March, for example, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt boasted, 'I can say we are on the 10th yard line of peace, and we've never been closer to a peace deal than we are in this moment.' Two months later, Trump participated in a two-hour phone meeting with Vladimir Putin, and the Republican touted the discussion as a possible breakthrough. 'The tone and spirit of the conversation were excellent,' the American president declared, adding that his chat would 'immediately' lead to new diplomatic negotiations. Soon after, Kyiv came under a large-scale Russian drone and missile attack, described by Ukrainian officials as the largest aerial assault on the country since the war began. It was soon followed by Ukraine's surprise drone attack that proved disastrous for Russia, and that jolted global perceptions. This in turn led Russia to launch one of the largest barrages of missiles and drones of the war at targets across Ukraine. This does not look like 'the 10th yard line of peace.' It was against this backdrop that Trump has apparently come up with a new metaphor. The New York Times reported: As Germany's chancellor, Friedrich Merz, sat beside him watching in silence, President Trump compared Russia and Ukraine to two fighting children who needed to work out their differences for a while before anyone could intervene. 'Sometimes you see two young children fighting like crazy,' Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. 'They hate each other, and they're fighting in a park, and you try and pull them apart. They don't want to be pulled. Sometimes you're better off letting them fight for a while and then pulling them apart.' 'And I gave that analogy to Putin yesterday,' the Republican added. 'I said, 'President, maybe you have to keep fighting and suffering a lot, because both sides are suffering, before you pull them apart, before they're able to be pulled apart.'' So, a few things. First, comparing this conflict to a dispute among children on a playground is unhelpful, and Trump complaining about anyone engaging in juvenile behavior is unwise, given everything we know about his temperament and frequent tantrums. Second, the idea that the White House is prepared to let Russia and Ukraine 'fight for a while' overlooks the inconvenient fact that they've already been fighting for a while. Indeed, Russia invaded Ukraine back in February 2022 — more than three years ago — which Trump described at the time as 'genius' and part of a 'wonderful' strategy. But let's also not lose sight of the evolution of the American president's thinking. Trump's Plan A for the war in Ukraine was ending the conflict within 24 hours by way of a secret strategy he assured voters was real. When it became obvious that this strategy didn't actually exist, Trump moved on to Plan B: He told Russia that if it failed to end the conflict quickly, the White House 'would have no other choice' but to impose new economic sanctions. When Putin ignored those threats and Trump failed to follow through, the American president floated Plan C (international economic penalties designed to force a ceasefire), Plan D (Trump-backed bilateral talks between Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy) and Plan E (bilateral talks between Trump and Putin). Plan F — White House passivity — is now increasingly coming into focus. Trump's latest plan to end the conflict is apparently to stop trying to end the conflict. This post updates our related earlier coverage. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
'Scapegoating entire nations.' Trump's travel ban hurts innocent Columbus families
Farxaan Jeyte is a seasoned political strategist, entrepreneur and advocate with over 20 years of experience in U.S. presidential, gubernatorial and Senate campaigns. He is active in U.S.–Africa policy and supports minority-owned businesses through his work in trade, governance and grassroots advocacy. Donald Trump's administration argues that banning citizens of 12 countries — Somalia included — from entering the United States will fill gaps in foreign vetting and prevent dangerous individuals from slipping through. The move came after an Egyptian national was arrested on charges that he firebombed a pro-Israel rally in Boulder, Colorado. Trump said the attack 'underscored the extreme dangers posed by foreign nationals who are not properly vetted.' White House officials call the move 'commonsense' and say it targets countries with weak screening and high visa overstay rates to 'protect Americans from dangerous foreign actors.' Yet for all the focus on security, the human costs of a blanket ban are impossible to ignore. The policy casts a wide net, halting travel for entire populations because of the actions of a few. It sweeps up people who pose no threat: students, grandparents and refugees. More: Habiba Soliman wanted to be a doctor. Then, her father firebombed Jewish marchers in Boulder Punishing whole nations for the crimes of individuals also raises basic fairness issues. Notably, the Boulder suspect's country of origin, Egypt, isn't even on the ban list, calling into question how effective banning other countries really is. From the administration's view, the Boulder attack was a wake-up call revealing flaws in the immigration system. Officials note the suspect was an Egyptian visitor who overstayed his visa — a failure of enforcement they cite as proof of lax vetting. Supporters of the ban point out that many listed nations are unstable, potentially allowing extremists to slip through. By halting entry from countries such as Afghanistan, Yemen and Somalia — all grappling with terrorism — the administration contends it is closing dangerous loopholes to prevent another tragedy. Critics argue the collateral damage — broken families and lost trust — far outweighs any security benefit. Human rights groups have decried the renewed policy as 'discriminatory' and cruel, saying it 'sows division and vilifies communities' seeking safety. The consequences for innocent families will be devastating. Ohio has roughly 60,000 Somali-American residents in the Columbus area. This vibrant community has contributed enormously — immigrants from Somalia have opened hundreds of local businesses and enriched the city's culture. More: 'Nobody told us about the neighborhood': Somali Americans experiences with youth violence A ban on Somalia strikes at the heart of these families. Grandparents may miss the birth of a grandchild, and students could see siblings barred from graduations. In Columbus, conversations are filled with concern for relatives stranded abroad. People who once fled terror and found refuge in America now worry they're seen as threats. It's a painful irony that has left many feeling alienated in the only country they call home. Trump's 2017 travel ban on Muslim-majority countries like Somalia caused chaos at airports and tore families apart — a history now poised to repeat. One Somali refugee in Ohio was separated from his wife and children for nearly seven years due to that ban. We can protect America without scapegoating entire nations. Rather than broad bans, officials should pursue targeted, intelligence-based measures — stronger background checks, better visa enforcement and vetting individuals based on real red flags, not blanket nationality. U.S. agencies are capable of pinpointing threats without closing the door on innocent travelers. Blanket travel bans offer a false sense of security while breeding resentment. A wiser approach balances vigilance with fairness, preserving goodwill with immigrant communities. Somali-Americans have proven their commitment to this country and should be treated as partners in safety, not suspects. Focusing on genuine threats — instead of scapegoating entire populations — is more just and more effective at keeping America safe. Farxaan Jeyte is a seasoned political strategist, entrepreneur and advocate with over 20 years of experience in U.S. presidential, gubernatorial and Senate campaigns. He is active in U.S.–Africa policy and supports minority-owned businesses through his work in trade, governance and grassroots advocacy. This article originally appeared on The Columbus Dispatch: Trump's travel ban lists countries with strong Ohio ties | Opinion
Bloomberg
32 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Bloomberg Intelligence: Stocks Rise as Jobs Surprise Spurs Treasury Losses
Watch Alix and Paul LIVE every day on YouTube: Bloomberg Intelligence hosted by Paul Sweeney and Alix Steel Steven Blitz, Chief US Economist at TS Lombard, discusses the May jobs report, discusses the May jobs report. US job growth moderated in May, with nonfarm payrolls increasing 139,000, and prior months' figures revised lower, indicating employers' caution about growth prospects. Max Chafkin, Bloomberg Businessweek Senior Reporter and and Co-Host of the Elon Inc Podcast, discusses the feud between Elon Musk and President Donald Trump. Elon Musk and Donald Trump's alliance ended in a public spat, with Musk eventually backing down after Tesla's stock price tanked and his net worth crumbled by $34 billion. Janet Lorin, Bloomberg Higher Education Finance Reporter, discusses the latest news at Harvard University. A US District Judge has granted Harvard University a temporary restraining order, blocking the Trump administration's ban on international students entering the US Poonam Goyal, Senior U.S. E-Commerce and Retail Analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence, discusses Lululmon earnings. Lululemon Athletica posted a second straight disappointing quarter, with projected sales and profit below analyst estimates, causing its shares to tumble as much as 21% in premarket trading.
